Just world fallacies and victim blaming

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by seebs

I wonder if this might be a good application for the "civil suit for wrongful death" methodology, where preponderance of evidence is good enough.

I've been hoping for the same thing. We saw with OJ that even if you can get off on the criminal charges, there can still be some degree of justice and consequences for fucking KILLING PEOPLE other than "oh well, the police fucked it up, nothing we can do about it now!" Or is that only for when black people kill white people?

[seebs]

I'm not even sure it's a police fuckup. If you have a guy who has injuries of some sort, he claims he was defending himself, and you have no real witnesses... It's gonna be pretty hard to prove what happened "beyond a reasonable doubt". Letting him go home may have been pretty questionable, but it doesn't really change the lack of sufficient information.

[lisarea]

If you search on Sanford Florida investigation or trial -trayvon, you'll find plenty of violent crime cases that have resulted in investigations, charges, and trials based on far less evidence than there is in this one. I'm pretty sure that conflicting accounts and lack of eyewitnesses are par for the course in violent crime cases.

I can't see a single valid reason that this case was treated so casually or dismissed so readily. It's a good thing that the family has other avenues of recourse, but that doesn't absolve the local police and prosecutors of their apparent failure to respond appropriately.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by seebs

you have no real witnesses

Like, say, a police operator who can testify that the suspect was initially in no danger whatever, and sought out the confrontation?

[livius drusus]

Besides, since when is it the cops' job to determine whether there's sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial? I'm pretty sure that's what prosecutors are for. What cops do is investigate. That means taking pictures of alleged injuries. That means taking witness statements (there were multiple 911 calls where witness describe shit going down; I don't know why they're supposed to be "not real witnesses") without padding them or directing them. That even means arresting admitted killers.

[ceptimus]

In the UK, if you shoot someone - even if they are armed and shooting at you - then you'll at least be arrested and questioned, then possibly charged and then possibly you'll appear in court with a charge of murder or manslaughter. The only exception would be if the killer was an on-duty policeman or member of the armed forces - these people might not even be arrested.

At each stage in the process, if the 'self defence' argument was strong and clear enough, there would be the possibility of no further action being taken.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Besides, since when is it the cops' job to determine whether there's sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial? I'm pretty sure that's what prosecutors are for. What cops do is investigate. That means taking pictures of alleged injuries. That means taking witness statements (there were multiple 911 calls where witness describe shit going down; I don't know why they're supposed to be "not real witnesses") without padding them or directing them. That even means arresting admitted killers.

True that.

This has gotten me to realize why I am distrustful of Zimmerman: No expression of regret that I've seen. People who act in good faith and something goes wrong express regret. Heck, people who act in good faith and are confident that what they did was right still tend to be pretty regretful if it involves a kid dying.

People who are so sure they were right that they don't regret what happened are, in most cases, not actually sure they're right, but pretending to be when they know otherwise. They mistakenly believe that regret or feeling guilty would be signs of guilt, when in fact they're characteristic even in cases where everyone agrees that it was justified.

[ImGod]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Yeah, I think that definitely fits, particularly in light of the fact that the police chief and others were responsible for spreading a lot of unfounded rumors about violent crime that helped foster that perception of the public as 'savages' that contributed to the mentality behind it.

After Katrina, crimes of the imagination - The New York Times

Ooh, and that picture all the internets likes to point at of the guy salvaging a tub of beer, like that's some horrible atrocity that proves that we don't need to feel sympathy for people who have been trapped and abandoned in a flooded city?

Oh, oh! And in response to some little newspaper story about some Katrina refugees moving to the Denver area, some helpful shitnut wrote a LTTE addressed to them, and telling them to keep on their toes, learn to better themselves, and try to act like responsible citizens, please. AND THE PAPER PRINTED IT.

Hell yes, Katrina was a great American Victim Blaming fest. Fuck everything about Katrina and most things about America.

I know, right. The case of that Brownie guy was terrible. Everyone pointing fingers at him, and blaming him for all of FEMA's problems. When he was just some poor friend of the President put in charge of some out of the way agency as part of repaying a past favor. Who would have thought anybody would ever actually need FEMA beyond local agencies handing out coffee after a tornado or something.

Totally blaming the victim.

I also felt sorry for the guy who had to drink warm beer after everyone stole all the good stuff. I can't believe he didn't think of stoping for ice while he was wading through chest deep sewage laden water.

[Escapegoat]

"stand your ground"

Funny how they are trying to make it include stalking your prey, then slaughtering him when he realizes that some scary looking guy is following him around and reacts violently to this knowledge.

That is the best case scenario for the Zimmerman defenders, right?

The way conservative extremists get to redefine everything has been bothering me since the mid eighties.

Anyone here ever hear "luntz" being used as a verb? Me neither.

They are luntzing the term "stand your ground,". I think. Or is that a reverse luntz?

Oh, frank...if you had just used your powers for good, instead of evil.

[BrotherMan]

Some frightening imagery in this op ed. Is America, ostensibly the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave (Under God)" going to be brave and free much longer? Is it getting to the point where it's just not safe to be outside, anywhere, for any reason - not because of crime or terrorism, not directly, but because the police, the Man, can assert nigh limitless authority on you for any reason or no reason?

Believe me: you don't want the state having the power to strip your clothes off. History shows that the use of forced nudity by a state that is descending into fascism is powerfully effective in controlling and subduing populations.

The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness. Enslaved women were sold naked on the blocks in the American south, and adolescent male slaves served young white ladies at table in the south, while they themselves were naked: their invisible humiliation was a trope for their emasculation. Jewish prisoners herded into concentration camps were stripped of clothing and photographed naked, as iconic images of that Holocaust reiterated.

[livius drusus]

I take the general point and agree with it, but adolescent male slaves serving table naked in front of white women? I find that very hard to believe.

[BrotherMan]

That struck me as odd too. I can't imagine the God Fearing South allowing their constitutionally weak ladies viewing the harsh reality of their slaves in such a naked manner (forgive the pun). Not to say slaves of the time weren't figuratively and literally stripped of their dignity at some or many points in their lives, but not at afternoon tea with the social club.

But then, I don't know my history. It wasn't taught in any of the Texas system universities don't you know.

[livius drusus]

I'll keep looking, but it really goes against everything I've ever heard or read about the antebellum south. The writer should have just referred to slave auctions where men, women and children were often stripped naked on the block.

[Angakuk]

The passage is rather ambiguous. Maybe it was the ladies that were naked. The women demonstrating a lack of concern over male slaves seeing them naked would be an equally emasculating and dehumanizing experience. I mean, who cares if the family dog sees them naked?

[Kael]

Maybe he's confusing slavery practices in the South with practices more common in ancient societies, like the Romans. But, yeah, it doesn't sound right to me either.

[Angakuk]

Well, slavery is slavery, doncha know? Context is irrelevant.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Well, slavery is slavery, doncha know? Context is irrelevant

and resistance is futile.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by lisarea

This might be my favorite:

Students protesting tuition hikes pepper-sprayed by police in Santa Monica, CA - Boing Boing

It's nothing personal or anything. It's just our policy to violently assault people if we decide there are too many of them.

All in all, it's been a pretty shitty week for those of us who believe in things like rights and freedom. Not the bullshit chimera "Freedom" that nutzoid right-wingers sodomize like the last donkey in Alabama, but real and actual freedom.

. . .

Are we done now? Are we past our post-9/11 worship of police? Have we given them enough rights as we have destroyed our own? And, most importantly, is it okay to call them "pigs" again?

Word.

[beyelzu]

I don't know where to put this, its not exactly victim blaming yet I think it is. It also could have gone in the meep controversy.

Further, anyone who has dabbled in Christianity or spent their childhood Sunday mornings learning the lessons of Jesus — that friendly bearded 2,000-year-old Israeli peace-loving hippie — knows that if there's anything Jesus thought was A-OK, it was loving people and treating them with dignity and respect. Now I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't recall getting to that part in the Gospels where Jesus went around shoving gay children into garbage cans while the 12 disciples laughed and laughed, or the part where Jesus set up a fake Facebook account so he could tell the effeminate boy from homeroom that he should consider slitting his wrists. Thus it's this anti-anti-bullying backlash is a bit confusing for me, an ex-Christian who has nothing personally against Jesus. If I'd known that Jesus was a bully, I'd have jumped ship long ago.

Christians Fight for Their Children's God-Given Right to Bully Gay Kids

I do love this take on the pro-bullying Christian lobby.

[seebs]

Huh, shows what she knows. The garbage-can thing was right after "I was hungry, and I had proof that my income was low and I had no savings, and you established to your satisfaction that I was not trying to defraud you and it wasn't just that I was lazy or hadn't planned well, and ye gave me a coupon good for discounts on meat."

(I emailed her this because I felt she would appreciate the correction.)

[beyelzu]

Let us know if she responds. I think its hilarious.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Let us know if she responds. I think its hilarious.

She did. Won't quote without permission, but she referred to sleeping through the "Bully Christ" section.

[beyelzu]

So this could go under conservatives say stupid shit,

but Newt whined that Fox news was biased and thats why he lost, cuz fox liked romney.

and brit hume said

Newt griping about Fox News, like Rick before him, is reminder: winners take responsibility; losers blame others.

which is a perfect succinct example of just world and victim blaming. I like it because its says not that Newt is bitching because he lost, but rather he lost because he is a loser and losers bitch.